9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (3) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de mark was registered on April 4, 1949. Under the provisions of section 19(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, the Registrar is required to send notice to the proprietor in this prescribed manner the date of expiration and the conditions as to payment of fees for renewal. If at the expiration of the time prescribed, the conditions have not been duly complied with the Registrar may remove the trade m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also advertised on December 1, 1956. In about July 1961, the appellants seem to have started correspondence which involved them in trouble because of the attitude taken by them. Their case was that they never received any notice. Apparently the Department, in a mood of self defence, approached the matter which was not helpful to the appellants. At the end of the correspondence on November 14, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r negligence failed to notice that fact. Even so, the question is whether the appellants, who are proprietors of the trade mark, should be denied restoration. 2. The question, in our view, should not be approached from any penal point of view. No punishment is contemplated by the statute. If restoration is just, it is bound to be made. That is the effect of the rule. It is true that there is an i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
